Units without a verifiable identity
Control is usually done by lot or by document. Without a per-unit identity, it is hard to tell a legitimate product from a copy with the same label.
Control by unit and public verification carrying each institution’s brand
For regulators and control agencies that need to know which units are on the market, where they come from and whether what is sold matches what is registered.
Common challenges
Regulated markets share similar problems, regardless of the product. These are the ones Traza sets out to solve.
-
-
Inspection that is hard to prioritize
Field teams are limited. Without signals from the registry, there is no way to decide where to inspect first.
-
Scattered records
Production, import and oversight record their data in different systems that can rarely be cross-checked.
-
No public verification channel
The public has no simple way to check a product or to flag it when something does not match.
Our approach
An identity and registry layer governed by the institution, with open public verification and field inspection as part of the deployment.
-
Signed unit-level identity
Each unit receives an identifier signed by its issuer, under rules defined by the institution.
-
Auditable registry
Chain events are kept in order, with responsible party and date, and can be exported for audit.
-
Field inspection within the deployment
Inspectors verify on site, check against the registry and record what they observe.
-
Co-brand by country and regulator
Public verification can show the institution’s brand alongside Traza’s, always with its approval.
-
Public verification
Anyone checks a unit from the browser and can report discrepancies that reach the registry.
How it is deployed
An institutional deployment advances in well-defined stages. The usual order is as follows.
-
Define the framework
The institution establishes which products are identified, which data describes a unit, which events are recorded and who can consult them.
-
Issue identities
Manufacturers and importers issue signed identities for their units according to the rules of the framework.
-
Record the chain
The issuer reports the lifecycle events: labelling, press proof and activation of the lot record.
-
Open public verification
The public verifies from the browser, with the institution’s brand if so approved, and reports discrepancies.
-
Inspect and act
The institution follows anomalies and reports, prioritizes field inspections and records the action taken.
Expected outcomes
What a deployment of this kind sets out to achieve, expressed without figures.
- Per-unit visibility over what circulates in the regulated market
- Better-targeted field inspections thanks to signals from the registry
- A public channel for verification and reporting that requires no installation or account
- An auditable registry that supports control and accountability
- An institutional brand present at the moment of verification
Expected outcomes are qualitative. No figures or measured results are presented.
See it in the platform
-
Institutional view
Consult the registry as a control agency would: units, anomalies, discrepancies and field inspection.
-
Public verification
See what the public would see when verifying a unit, with the co-brand example from the spirits use case.
-
Product journey
Follow a unit from its issuance through its lookups and see which events are recorded.
Nothing above claims a relationship with governments or agencies, certifications or measured results. The spirits use case is a pilot proposal.
Let’s talk about a well-scoped pilot
A pilot starts with one product, one framework of rules and a small group of actors. We can help define it.